Issues: Whether adjudication and appellate orders could stand where the show-cause notice was uploaded only under the portal tab 'Additional Notice and Orders', without separate intimation, resulting in the assessee being unable to respond.

Analysis: The notice was uploaded only in the specified portal tab and no separate intimation was given. The assessee was consequently unable to file a reply to the show-cause notice. Since the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal solely on limitation and had not considered the merits, the denial of an effective opportunity to respond constituted a breach of principles of natural justice warranting interference.

Conclusion: The adjudication and appellate orders could not be sustained; the assessee must be afforded an opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice and receive a fresh reasoned determination after hearing.

Issues: (i) Whether input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 can be appropriated towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) Whether the statutory appellate remedy should be preserved after rectification of an erroneous FORM GST DRC-07 and portal-related filing difficulties.

Issue (i): Whether input tax credit blocked under Rule 86A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 can be appropriated towards the statutory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: Section 107(6) requires payment of the prescribed pre-deposit, while Section 49(4) permits utilisation of credit in the electronic credit ledger subject to statutory restrictions. A restriction under Rule 86A prevents debit of the blocked credit for discharge of liability; blocking neither constitutes payment nor appropriation against an adjudicated demand. The adjudication order contained no appropriation of the petitioner's blocked credit. The subsisting restrictions were imposed by an authority not impleaded in the writ proceedings, and the underlying orders, recorded reasons, and current running credit balance were unavailable for review.

Conclusion: Against the assessee, the blocked credit could not be treated as payment of, or appropriated towards, the statutory pre-deposit unless the competent authority removes or modifies the Rule 86A restriction. Credit otherwise lawfully available and capable of debit may be used for the pre-deposit.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory appellate remedy should be preserved after rectification of an erroneous FORM GST DRC-07 and portal-related filing difficulties.

Analysis: The erroneous summary order had caused the portal to compute the pre-deposit on the combined tax and penalty amount, and the error was rectified only after the petitioner had attempted to file its appeal and pursued rectification. The merits of the input tax credit demand involve disputed factual questions requiring consideration by the statutory appellate authority.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, the petitioner was permitted to file the statutory appeal within four weeks without rejection on limitation, subject to compliance with Section 107(6). Necessary electronic filing assistance was directed, with manual filing available if the portal continued to prevent filing despite compliance.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the tax demand and to the validity of the Rule 86A restrictions remains open for adjudication before the competent forum, while the petitioner's access to the statutory appeal is protected.

Ratio Decidendi: Input tax credit blocked from debit under Rule 86A cannot satisfy a statutory pre-deposit requirement merely because it is unavailable to the registered person; it must be lawfully debit-able or the restriction must first be removed or modified by the competent authority.

Issues: Whether an adjudication under Section 74 could be maintained without an effective opportunity to respond where the registration had been cancelled and a change of address had been communicated.

Analysis: Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 governed the initiated proceedings, while the possibility of action under Section 73 remained in issue. Cancellation of registration, the communicated address for correspondence, and the absence of an effective opportunity to respond to the show-cause proceedings implicated procedural fairness and the right to be heard. The asserted voluntary reversal of excess input tax credit before initiation of the proceedings also required an opportunity to contest the continuation and characterisation of the proceedings. The merits of the show-cause notice, including the applicability of Sections 74 and 73, were left open.

Conclusion: An adjudication founded on the absence of a reply could not be sustained in the stated circumstances without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to respond; the substantive questions concerning the proposed proceedings remained open.

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory GST appeal should be condoned and the appeal considered on merits.

Analysis: Although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation prescribed under the GST enactments, the delay arose from circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including lack of effective knowledge of the proceedings and order. Refusal to permit merits adjudication in these circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The consistent approach permitting delayed appeals to be entertained on merits was applied.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the assessee was entitled to have its appeal entertained and adjudicated on merits.

Issues: (i) Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal as barred by limitation resulted in merger of the original GST-registration cancellation order and precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the GST-registration cancellation order, passed upon non-response to the show-cause notice, warranted interference and restoration of registration.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal as barred by limitation resulted in merger of the original GST-registration cancellation order and precluded exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The appellate order was a summary rejection on limitation and did not adjudicate the merits of the cancellation order. Such rejection did not cause merger of the original order and did not restrict jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The time-barred appellate dismissal did not result in merger or bar writ relief, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the GST-registration cancellation order, passed upon non-response to the show-cause notice, warranted interference and restoration of registration.

Analysis: The failure to respond to the show-cause notice was attributed to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause. A justice-oriented approach warranted one further opportunity, with the assessee undertaking to file returns and discharge outstanding tax liabilities.

Conclusion: The cancellation order warranted being set aside and the GST registration restored upon compliance with the stipulated return-filing and payment requirements, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The original cancellation was removed and the assessee became entitled to restoration of GST registration on fulfilment of the specified fiscal compliances.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary appellate rejection solely on limitation does not merge the original order or preclude constitutional writ jurisdiction where justice warrants substantive relief.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory appeal beyond the period prescribed for appeal and condonation could be condoned.

Analysis: Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes a three-month period for filing an appeal, while Section 107(4) permits condonation for a further period of one month upon sufficient cause. The appeal was filed beyond those periods. Having regard to the extent of delay, the factual matters requiring consideration in appeal, and the applicable co-ordinate bench decision, relief was considered expedient.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appellate order was set aside; the appellate authority must proceed in accordance with law, with all merits contentions kept open.

Issues: Whether an appeal dismissed for the petitioner's non-appearance should be restored for adjudication on merits.

Analysis: The stated inability of the petitioner's auditor/tax consultant to attend the notified hearings was accepted as sufficient to restore the appeal, while safeguarding the proceedings through imposition of costs and directions for appearance before the appellate authority.

Outcome: The appellate dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was restored for further proceedings, subject to payment of costs; merits were kept open.

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the GST demand should be entertained despite the unavailed statutory appellate remedy and the delay in approaching the Court.

Analysis: The statutory appeal mechanism was available but had not been invoked. The petition was instituted more than a year after the impugned demand order. The merits of the demand and the alleged breach of natural justice were not adjudicated.

Conclusion: Exercise of writ jurisdiction was declined; the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether service-tax liability could be sustained without examining whether turnover from trading in farm products was taxable and without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity to respond.

Analysis: The impugned adjudication recorded non-filing of a response and non-attendance at hearings. However, the material question whether the stated turnover from trading in farm products was exigible to service tax had not been considered. A sustainable liability required due consideration of taxability after affording an opportunity to place a response and supporting documents.

Conclusion: The liability could not be sustained without fresh consideration of the taxability of the turnover after providing a fair opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for continuous non-filing of returns should be set aside and the registration restored.

Analysis: The cancellation was founded solely on non-filing of returns, with no allegation of any dubious process for tax evasion. Continued cancellation would prevent the taxpayer from conducting business and raising invoices, thereby impairing recovery of tax. A pragmatic course was therefore warranted, since the final tax liability could be determined only upon filing of returns.

Conclusion: The cancellation order and the consequential appellate order were set aside, with restoration of registration upon filing of pending returns and payment of the applicable tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated period.

Issues: Whether pre-charge evidence in a complaint under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act could be recorded without a formal cognizance or summoning order and without compliance with Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates the prescribed pre-cognizance procedure, including the accused's opportunity of hearing. Cognizance requires judicial application of mind and cannot be treated as a merely ministerial step. The absence of a formal order summoning the petitioners as accused, followed by recording of pre-charge evidence, was contrary to that mandatory procedure and the fair-trial safeguards governing cognizance.

Conclusion: Recording of pre-charge evidence without a formal cognizance or summoning order and compliance with Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was impermissible; the impugned pre-charge evidence orders were set aside.

Issues: (i) Whether the demand determined in the adjudication order could exceed the amount specified in the show-cause notice, contrary to Section 75(7). (ii) Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal despite the jurisdictional defect in the adjudication order.

Issue (i): Whether the demand determined in the adjudication order could exceed the amount specified in the show-cause notice, contrary to Section 75(7).

Analysis: Section 75(7) confines a demand of tax, interest and penalty to the amount and grounds stated in the show-cause notice. The notice specified a demand of Rs. 9,38,898, whereas the determination in Form GST DRC-07 was Rs. 10,27,788. The determination therefore travelled beyond the quantified demand in the notice.

Conclusion: The determination exceeding the show-cause notice was jurisdictionally erroneous and invalid, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the Appellate Tribunal despite the jurisdictional defect in the adjudication order.

Analysis: Although an appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal was available, the appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely on limitation without examining merits. The established jurisdictional defect in the original demand made recourse to the Tribunal futile.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not required to pursue the alternative appellate remedy, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned original and appellate orders cannot stand; the show-cause proceedings require fresh adjudication after notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax demand cannot exceed the amount specified in the show-cause notice; a demand beyond that limit is jurisdictionally invalid and warrants writ intervention notwithstanding an available statutory appellate remedy.

Issues: Whether a writ challenge to a tax determination under Section 74 could be entertained despite an available statutory appellate remedy where the objections raised involved disputed factual questions.

Analysis: The alleged defects concerning signatures on statutory forms, specificity and consolidation of show-cause notices, the identity of the hearing officer, and consideration of objections involved factual matters. The materials indicated that the demand summaries identified the taxable periods and that the hearing and determination were undertaken by a proper officer. The statutory scheme provides a multi-tiered appellate mechanism against determinations under Sections 73 and 74, with prescribed pre-deposit safeguards. The petitioner had earlier withdrawn its challenge to the show-cause notices with liberty only to submit a reply and participate in adjudication, and could not bypass the appellate process merely to avoid the statutory pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The challenge was required to be pursued before the statutory appellate forum; against the assessee.

Issues: Whether cancellation of GST registration for continuous non-filing of returns should be set aside to enable compliance and recovery of tax.

Analysis: The cancellation was based solely on non-filing of returns, without any allegation of a dubious process for tax evasion. Continued cancellation would prevent business operations and issuance of invoices, thereby impairing determination and recovery of tax liability. A pragmatic course required allowing compliance through filing of pending returns and payment of the consequential statutory dues.

Conclusion: The cancellation of registration was set aside in favour of the assessee, conditional upon filing returns for the entire default period and payment of tax, interest, fine and penalty within the stipulated time; upon compliance, the registration is to be restored.

Issues: Whether an adjudication under Section 74(9) is sustainable where the taxpayer was not notified of the specific date, time and venue for personal hearing as required by Section 75(4).

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates an opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse determination is made, irrespective of whether the person chargeable with tax seeks such hearing. Although the adjudication recorded that an opportunity had been afforded, the record did not demonstrate that any specific date, time and venue of personal hearing had been notified before the determination. The recorded hearing also pre-dated the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The adjudication was unsustainable for breach of the mandatory hearing requirement; the taxpayer was entitled to a fresh adjudication after filing a response and being afforded a duly notified personal hearing, in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether services for treatment and disposal of industrial waste performed by an entity registered under section 12AA qualify as charitable activities involving preservation of environment and are exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017; (ii) Whether proceedings under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be invoked for the alleged non-payment of GST.

Issue (i): Whether services for treatment and disposal of industrial waste performed by an entity registered under section 12AA qualify as charitable activities involving preservation of environment and are exempt under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.

Analysis: The prior determination that the entity's dominant activity of treating industrial liquid and solid waste constitutes preservation of environment remained applicable to its registered charitable status. Clause 2(r)(iv) of Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) covers preservation of environment within charitable activities and grants a nil rate to services supplied by entities registered under section 12AA. The general 9% entry for sewage and waste treatment services under Heading 9994 in Notification No. 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) did not displace the specific exemption applicable to such registered charitable activities.

Conclusion: The services qualified for the charitable-activities exemption under Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate), in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be invoked for the alleged non-payment of GST.

Analysis: Section 74 requires fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts with intent to evade tax. A bona fide claim of exemption founded on the entity's section 12AA registration, its established charitable activities, and the exemption notification did not establish any deliberate withholding of material information, fraud, or intent to evade tax. Mere non-payment founded on such claim did not amount to wilful suppression.

Conclusion: The conditions for invocation of section 74 were not established, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The proposed GST demand founded on the denial of charitable exemption and the allegation of wilful suppression was legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A section 12AA-registered entity carrying out activities determined to constitute preservation of environment is entitled to the specific charitable-activities exemption, and a bona fide claim of that exemption does not satisfy the fraud or wilful-suppression requirement for action under section 74.

Issues: Whether the withheld IGST refund required an expeditious final administrative decision.

Analysis: The refund had remained pending for over three and a half years. Although one alert against the exporter's IEC was stated to remain pending, the competent authority was directed to take a final decision within one week.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for a final decision within one week.

Issues: Whether continued detention and prohibition of goods after expiry of the maximum period under Section 67(7) was lawful.

Analysis: The respondents acknowledged that the prohibition order ceased automatically upon expiry of the extended period of six months. Continued detention of the goods pursuant to that expired order was therefore contrary to the statutory limitation.

Conclusion: Continued detention and prohibition of the goods after expiry of the prescribed period was unlawful, and the goods were directed to be released in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the relevant date for the two-year limitation for refund of Kerala Flood Cess mistakenly paid through Form GSTR-3B is the date of the original erroneous payment or the date of payment into the correct cess account.

Analysis: Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 prescribes a two-year limitation for refund claims. Where Kerala Flood Cess was initially paid through Form GSTR-3B instead of the prescribed Form KFC-A, the relevant date for limitation is the date on which the cess was subsequently remitted into the correct account. The refund application was filed within two years of that payment.

Conclusion: In favour of the assessee: the refund application was within limitation, and its rejection as time-barred was unsustainable.

Issues: Whether delay in filing the statutory GST appeal should be condoned where the order-in-original was uploaded on the common portal without the petitioner acquiring knowledge of it within the prescribed period.

Analysis: Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 binds the Appellate Authority to the prescribed limitation. However, the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, namely absence of knowledge of the ex parte order uploaded on the portal. Denial of adjudication on merits in these circumstances would cause grave prejudice. The principles concerning portal-only service and restoration of the appellate remedy were adopted.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned and the petitioner is entitled to have its appeal entertained and adjudicated on merits.